This is just a debate/discussion on the "Win the War" combat promoting system and some of the things in it.
* Is where I discuss the current win the war setup.
** Is some of my totally random ideas. Bring coffee for this.
*** Some things that could be implemented into the current AH, that might spice some things up.
Leave your Purses at the door before commenting.
*
I'm actually curious of why exactly we have a 'win the war' system anyways? I mean that in a different way than it sounded. You can have your bomber-types, fighter-jock-types and ground warfare-types all get together and capture bases to win the war. I understand it's a.. 'goal' a mini-task of something to do in the game that provokes or encourages you to actively pursue a set goal or to accomplish something, most of the time damaging or taking something the enemy has. Which in turn starts combat.. which is the overall point of the game.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the concept for some time of why we have needed to destroy the town in order to capture a base. When there is nothing significant in the town to begin with that ensures the safety or security of the base that we are initially trying to capture. There might have been in the actual war, but not in-game.. unless bakery shops are something to be feared. I can see destroying the town buildings to lower troop morale (so instead of 10 troops in an m3/251/c47 you would only get 5) because their homes were destroyed. But why is destroying random homes and businesses required to take a military base? I can see destroying nearby factories that would supply the base with new planes/tanks or ammunition/fuel before taking the base, but not the town.
**
Since I currently don't have a computer that can play it, I have been watching gameplay on WarThunder for the past few weeks and seen some of their 'win da war' methods.
Disclaimer: I do realize that AH is to promote combat, and many of the things that you can participate in Warthunder don't directly benefit the combat aspect, they simply take away the 'tics/markers' to get your side closer to victory. Example: Like players who destroy only ground targets and convoys, avoiding combat and fights, while still benefiting their side.
Currently, we have only one way to capture a base, which is to destroy the town, de-ack it, and capture it with 10 troops. Which applies to all bases, large and small, V-base and Port. Which I think is wrong. I think we should have to meet specific requirements for each type of base, that is designed around that type of base.. and if HTC really wanted to.. they could design it for specific bases. So P63 might not be captured the same way as P71 because of the terrain around it, giving it a certain advantage of a key requirement for P63's capture. However, that would require more time and coading, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
I'm not really sure what could be 'added' to shake up the 'win da war' system. Every time I think of something, I think of "It's a combat game, to try and promote combat" and some of the things that I might mention wouldn't promote combat in the way things might now. Making it so people could literally not interact with each other and still win the war.. if done improperly.
There is a balance that has to be met, but it would make it so players would have to work together (not in hoards), and try to achieve different goals that would eventually reach a larger task or accomplishment.. which for some is winning the war.
Right now it's capturing a certain percentage of the two enemy sides to win the war. The requirements for capturing all types of bases is the same, and normally capturing bases is dealt with in the same manner. Hoards. Sometimes being changed up based on player driven activities. Like 'stealth' missions or 're-enactments' etc.
So working within the current gameplay mechanics. One side could capture 5%-10% of the enemy bases. Then they hit the enemy strats. Because they hit the enemies strats, it does direct damage to downtimes for whatever was hit, but what if it made it so based on the percentage of strats (or something else) was hit, would determine how many bases you could capture?
So, Bishops are on a steamrolling adventure, mopping up rooks and knights alike. Rooks or Knights (or both) hit Bishop strats. Doing direct damage, and making it so Bishops can only capture 15% bases, when they need 20% to win the war. Encouraging those who want to win the war, to defend strats, and giving something to defend if you are looking for combat; since that would be a target of interest for the enemy sides. In order to increase the amount of bases your side can capture, in this case Bishops', they would need to repair their strats with cargo. There would have to be multiple factors that impact how many bases a side can conquer, otherwise in this case, all the rooks & knights would have to do is flatten the bishop strats and they couldn't capture anymore bases.
In order to take more than 20%, you should have to do something different. Perhaps get a certain amount of kills (as a whole side) to prove to the higher-ups that you can handle taking more bases? Can't really think of anything for it, that last sentence was a pathetic example, but I'm trying. This would make it so one side doesn't have 50% of another while working on the other side. Making winning the war more difficult, and most satisfying when you win.
My goal here isn't to change the game - but to brainstorm. Right now no matter what 'tool' you use, what you have to do is the same in order to capture a base or win the war.
I think it would be cool if we had multiple ways of winning the war, all that promote combat, but that aren't.. funneled into a repetitive task.
Another idea... resource.. wars? *shrug*
Here's the idea. You need a certain amount of resources in order to cripple your enemy and thus 'win the war'.
Ports have specific resources, Vbases and small medium and large airfields too. You need certain amounts from each type of field.
There would be a system made mission that gives you planes, loadouts and a task. "Take this port with this plane and loadout, you have 40 mins to capture this base to get your reward. Only X amount of players can join, and the mission launches in X minutes".
***
There would be 'serious' missions and maybe a 'goofy' mission maker.
Serious would be.. 5 p51 escorts 2 p38s w/ rockets and DTs escorting a few formations of B17s. Take out at least 5% of the rooks AAA strats. Anything over the required amount gets you more perks rewarded. If you die you only get 70%, if you land you get 125%. If you land at the base you took off from 200%. You have 3 hours to complete this mission once accepted.
Goofy would be something like this.
Capture a port with 5 ju87s (37mm anti-tank version) and 2 Me410s (no ordinance).
This would award perks if completed, but it would be for fun.. not so much for capturing the base. (For Goofy Missions Only).
There could even be achievements for these. "Complete # # # of Goofy Missions" and "Complete # # # of Serious Missions".
Then perks earned on Goofy / Serious Missions (from rewards based on performance) etc.
Then Destruction Missions for bombers or attack types.
5 SBDs and 2 FM2s and capture a base. (For a challenging one).
For Heavy Bombers
5 sets of (heavy bomber here) and attack the strats. Overall mission should do at least 10% strat damage, anything over 10% gets more perks.. same multipliers as the "serious" mission type.
Daily challenges could be something that we could have.
Shoot down 5 planes by killing the pilot.
Destroy a bomber by shooting the wing off.
Sink a CV.
etc etc.
Which would award perks, not so much for veteran players (would could disable this if they wanted to), but more for newbie players. The serious and goofy system missions would take the 'spot' on the clipboard currently occupied by staged missions. These cycle through, so there is always something to do. There could be 'serious' or 'goofy' missions that require the team as a whole to succeed (those who fail take away from the reward of others), or individual performance benefits the individual. I think the latter would be most preferred.
The daily challenges would reset every 24 hours. So newbies could at least do some of the simple things and get to fly the "elit3" planes.
I know some are strictly against the daily challenge part, for making it easier on the newer players. Why I'm not entirely sure, but if you are against it, please give a
detailed none derogatory reason as to why.
That's pretty much all I can think of right now.
Please stay on topic and try to give detailed reasons as to why things will work and others won't. If you like something please say why,
's or +1s don't really help me or HTC understand why you like it. Same applies for those who go No, -1 or (waystin's) NOPE.jpg
Thanks for reading.
